CPU Intel and their outrageously funny claims...

reference info from the software does not, this is the entire text on the profiles and it says no such thing, in addition there is no such mention in chapter 5 of the user guide which discusses profiles.

I would also say it is not subjective, it is complicated to review as you have options, NUMA/UMA etc, look at bit techs review of 2950, not covered at all, despite being faster in NUMA mode for many tests, you don't see NUMA/UMA in bench result just stock and overclocked, which is a shame as often there is more performance to be had from running specific memory modes that suit your application.

 

Which leads to the other issue, that of using multiple GPUs of the same model to enable simultaneous benching, especially in one of the shittier Thermalcrap cases (as was used in the tests) you can't guarantee that the boost clock behaviour of all GPUs will be identical.

 

You can test 16 systems in two weeks... easy. You just have them all configured and run them simultaneously. It’s not a challenge.

 

Ah well that makes sense. PT disclosed this fully in their testing methodology but i'm not so sure Intel did.

Turns out the comparison was with the 2700X running in 'Game Mode' so it was gimped to 4c8t.

A mistake that but PT weren't hiding it.

 

Looks like they're retesting... interesting!

 

I'm guessing you searched the document instead of reading it as if you'd read it you would have come across statements such as "AMD suggests using the Game Mode profile to optimize overclocking for games, perhaps with more aggressive CPU, graphics and memory overclocking taken toward the edge of stability" and "The number of enabled CPU cores may be reduced from the maximum to tune the available number of threads of execution and the associated CPU power requirements and related cooling requirements to achieve maximum performance for given applications."

They make it pretty clear, even in the section you quoted, that Game Mode is not something you would normally use as Legacy Compatibility Mode [is] always set to ON.

However even if you disagree that it's not clear, maybe because someone failed to read the entire manual and took something out of context, you've not address the QRG that is tailored for people who don't want to read the entire manual and so may miss the context afforded to them by doing so.

When it comes to TR i agree, it is more complicated, but that just lends more weight that the tests that PT ran were flawed...They configured TR to use LCM and set MAM to local but then did the same with entirely different CPU, if, as they claim, they wanted to test how a typical 'gamer' would use the system then disabling half the cores is probably not typical, I'd venture most 'gamers' wouldn't even install Ryzen Master.

And even if they did and decided to apply Game Mode don't you think they'd notice the big green lights on four cores being turned off, having a warning dialog telling them they're disabling cores and being asked to reboot, would sort of give the game away. I mean even your typical gamer would probably question the benefits of disabling half his CPU.

Thanks for clarifying that. Not having done that sort of testing myself i was trying to give them the benefit of doubt and assumed the flaws people are highlighting in their testing was down to something other than malicious intent, incompetence, or some such thing, that they have the best of intentions.

 

Yea I'll admit it's not the best named profile, however when i read the whole manual i got the distinct impression that it's a profile mainly intended for use with TR.

And yes I'm that bored i really did read the entire manual.

 

Exactly, this is why I can give them the benefit of the doubt, no warnings pop up to say cores are disabled when you enable it either, As a gamer you would be inclined to turn on game mode and the text above is direct from the tool on my desktop. It would be quite easy to miss disabled cores.

My TR1900X is only 8 core same as a Ryzen 7 so whilst I want local mode I do not want legacy mode which is enabled with game mode, as I want all my threads with local memory. You definately don't want to use game mode on my Threadripper as it impacts it the same as an R7.

 

Doesn't quite roll off the tongue, though.

 

I know i need an eye test but even i can see this.


I mean if a popup telling you that you're disabling cores and if you want to restore all cores that you'll need another reboot after the reboot to disable them isn't enough IDK what would be.

 

Strange don't recall seeing that regardless, kind of highlights the point, I read the help on the tool and missed that, so I can still see how their mistake can be made enabling game mode.

 

True, i could envision a scenario where a tester, under time constraints or whatever, would miss something like that so I'm happy to chalk it up to a genuine mistake, like i said PT's testing seems sloppy but i don't hold that against them as they come across as genuine and they've probably been caught off guard with how vicarious the internet pitchfork mob can be.

If anything i think the blame lies more with Intel who gave the green light to publish PT's testing, it feels like Intel have thrown PT, and every reviewer who's signed an NDA, under the bus for marketing reasons and its backfire on them.

Returning to the OP it seems Intel are being more, than usual, deceptive in their marketing of late and that's not a good thing to see as it means everything they say, claim, or publish has to be called into question, it results in a lack of trust.

 

If you're a business in the business of testing things you should know what even an IT novicey novice (ie me) knows.

Edit: In other words, they clearly state it was in Game Mode and i'm left wondering if the were requested to do so.

 

Which is kind of pointless from Intel when you think about it:

Every potential customer for the i9-9900K has known for months before launch that it will be the fastest "mainstream" gaming CPU on the planet (until inevitably something faster comes out at some point in the future).
And the normies who didn't know? They aren't going to buy a £600 CPU for gaming in the first place.
So really, Intel damaged their reputation for nothing.

 

Like you say, everyone knew it was going tp be the fastest gaming cpu. No question. Intel has the fastest gaming cpus but at a price.

Why this was allowed, or requested, to happen and why it wasn't nipped in the bud is pretty darn right silly.

 

It's just an observation guys, but Intel and it's associated management have acquired a bit of a reputation lately for damaging their own reputation (oh and assuming consumers are brain dead) - it hardly inspires retail confidence now does it?

 

Interestingly this is all mine tells me when I go to enable game mode, so I am definitely not going mad, perhaps there are other versions but I only installed this a few weeks back. Its v=1.4.0.0728